>>3515033>because my only intent was to state my viewpoint, and I meant no offense
It's your viewpoint that Tracer did the right thing given the situation, and that should not be found guilty of the crime with which she is 'charged', given the threat to civilian life. And there's nothing wrong with that, I never denied you that viewpoint
BUT, I was not stating an opposing viewpoint, I was stating that:>Tracer acts.>Overwatch reacts>This action/reaction fits the criteria to be deemed a crime, much like how the Recall is also a crime.
Nothing else. Not that you must also deem her guilty of the aforementioned crime. That was never what I was saying.
And for doing this I am "overreacting", "hyperbolic", and Overwatch's actions were deemed to not be what they were because you....disagree that the above happened despite us being shown it? That's pretty not okay.>The entire bottom part of the post.
So replying to requests for objectivity about an objective truth with accusations of overreaction and the like, and then bringing up an opinion that has nothing to do with the topic is fine, but being done with this continually happening isn’t?
Would you also claim that Jaina Proudmoore didn’t commit the highest of treasons to save the Horde, or that Gabe didn’t commit a war crime in blowing away Antonio to prevent him from getting let out by corrupt officials?
I get it, you don’t think she should be found guilty, which is fine, but saying it doesn't fit the criteria of crime just because you don’t think she should be found guilty is not.
Otherwise it’s reasonable to state that Widow committed no crimes because I think -she- shouldn’t be found guilty.(It's not, she did commit them)